At center of all the absurdities in this trial is the serious matter of a young woman who says she was abused by her now-dead ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, and who's desperately fighting to avoid being sentenced to death row.

But few people care about that, not at this point. Arias is a proven liar and murderer who's trying to justify before a Maricopa County jury and the whole world that she had a good reason for plunging a knife into Alexander 27 times, shooting him in the face, and then slicing his throat from ear to ear like she's some kind of friggin' pirate.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez surprises Arias' defense counsel by moving to the defense side of the courtroom to make a point.

Anyway, here is our transcript of one of the weirdest parts of the trial -- a minutes-long argument over nothing between Martinez and Arias. Reporters for several news outlets tweeted this was a "meltdown" by Martinez, and it's hard to disagree. The personality conflict has been present since the beginning of the cross-examination, but this was an indulgence by both Arias and Martinez, and one facilitated by Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens, who didn't try to stop it.

For your video enjoyment, check out the YouTube vid posted today by "croakerqueen123" by clicking here or on the embedded video above.

The "meltdown" begins at 38:48 of the video, which is 1:16:31 long.

Martinez is leading Arias through a period in which she once snooped through Alexander's phone and read his text messages to and from other women:

"And you were very offended by that, right?"

"Yeah," Arias answers. "Offended would be accurate."

"Right," says Martinez, using one of his favorite words. "And you were so offended that you still decided to go on vacation with him, right?"

Prosecutor Juan Martinez banters with murder suspect Jodi Arias.

"Um, that wasn't why,"

"Well, no, you were very offended -- you just told us that, right."

"i didn't say 'very,' but..."

"Well, you were offended, right?"

"I was hurt."

"Ma'am, didn't you just say you were offended?"

"Offended would be accurate."

"Ma'am, didn't you just say it was a good word, right?" (Which isn't a good question with "right" at the end of it.)

"Yeah, there's many descriptors to use."

"But you just said just now it was a good word, right?" (Not exactly what she said.)

"Um, yes, i think."

"You 'think' -- it means you don't remember what you just said."

"I don't know."

"What do you mean you don't know?" Martinez explodes. "You just said offended was a good word, and when I used it, then you took issue with it. Is it a good word or is not a good word?"

"Um, it depends on how you used it,"

"Well, I'm saying, you're the one that, I asked you the question, and you were offended, and you said offended is a good word. That's what you said, right?"

"I don't know." This is by far Arias' favorite response to a question.

"Well, this just happened -- how is it that you are not remembering what you are saying?"

"Because you're making my brain scrambled."

"Oh, I'm again making your brain scrambled. So, in this particular case, the problem is not you, it's the questions being posed by the prosecutor, right?"

"No, not the questions..." Arias says.

"Yes or no!" Martinez yells. "Yes or no!"

"I was saying no and you interrupted me."

"In this case you're looking to point the finger at somebody else again, right?"

"No, it's my fault."

The banter kept going on like that as courtroom watchers and jury members watched in disbelief.

Kirk Numri, Arias' taxpayer-funded attorney, eventually mumbles an objection, which Stephens overrules. She's letting this happen, so she wants to see how it will end up.

And so it keeps going.

Returning to a phrase familiar during the three days of cross-examination, Martinez asks Arias why she can't remember what she "just said."

Arias let's him have it: "I think i'm more focused on your posture and your tone and your anger, and so its hard to process the questions."

Martinez answers by referring to himself in third person. "So, the answer is it's again the prosecutor's fault because you perceive him to be angry, right?"

"It's not your fault."

"Well, I'm, uh -- is somebody asking you whose fault it is?"

"You did." Arias answers quickly.

"Well, you seem to be pointing it at the prosecutor, right?" is Martinez's comeback. "So you believe the reason you can't be effective on the witness stand is because somebody is asking questions you don't like?"

"I think that was a compound question," Arias retorts, playing lawyer.

At about 46:10, as the argument winds on, Martinez walks to the defense side of the courtroom, leans on the defense lectern and asks Arias sarcastically if she'd be more comfortable if he asked questions from that spot. Numri raises an objection and asks Judge Stephens if they can approach the bench to prevent Martinez from doing the same thing "over and over" again.

Definitely some weird court moments.

But the weirdest was yet to come. After lunch, the Arias trial lived up to its reputation as a smut-fest, with talk galore of "jizz" on Arias' face, the anal sex she'd had with multiple partners including Alexander, Mormon views of oral sex, and the benefits of using KY for anal sex rather than baby oil.

The dirtiest stuff comes in the last third or so of croakerqueen's "Part 2" video from today, embedded below. Not for kids.

Overall, Martinez was actually very effective today in deconstructing Arias' claims that Alexander had made her feel like a "prostitute" and a "used piece of toilet paper." The evidence showed Arias was enjoying her sexual relationship with Alexander and had been kinky with other guys.

Ray has worked as a newspaper reporter in Arizona for more than two decades. He's won many awards awards for his reporting, including the Arizona Press Club's Don Bolles Award for Investigative Journalism.